Pete Clark on z/VSE: z/VSE Issues Update

by Pete Clark
August 7, 2007

The April/May column generated some dialog on the issues, so an update seems in order.

CA

Shortly after the April/May z/Journal issue hit the streets, Robert Giesting from CA posted a note on the VSE-L digest 4591, addressing some of the concerns raised in my last column. After reading his reply, I requested a copy of the document he referenced and read it, thanks to Maurice Donegan, CA vice president of Marketing.

During a follow-up conference call with several CA representatives, we discussed the specific questions VSE users have asked but that weren’t addressed in the document. I would expect that by the time you read this, or soon after, CA will have answers to some of the questions posted on the Web or emailed to users of record. If your question isn’t addressed by then, I would encourage you to communicate your concerns to Robert.Giesting@ca.com, Brian.James@ca.com (product line managers), or Maurice. Donegan@ca.com (vice president of Marketing).

Ron Solometo of HFD Technologies asked me to attend his WAVV 2007 Vendor Session, which addressed some of the concerns from my previous column. I attended the session, knowing that some missing CA employees have recently formed a company to deliver technical, implementation, and support assistance to CA customers.

It appears that CA may be implementing a new business model by pushing some part of support/implementation/ analysis to Independent Service Partners (ISPs). HFD is the only ISP we are aware of at this time, and it appears there’s no formal ISP agreement/contract. Will other ex-CA employees do the same? Only time will tell.

The lack of a formal contract may actually be beneficial to the customer. A service partner isn’t obligated to select specific products when doing product compares for a customer. And since the revenue of the ISP appears to be dependent on the customer, the customer should be wellserved or the revenue will cease.

So where does that leave CA customers? It appears that CA will continue to market and support the product set using the staff that’s still there. Is that acceptable? I expect that CA customers will decide, based upon future experiences with CA support and sales, which is how it should be.

Those services that were optional at extra cost and sometimes included in a sales contract to “sweeten” the deal are outsourced. If the customer wants additional assistance, such as implementation assistance or enhanced problem resolution skills, then they would contract through an ISP.

IBM/FSI

Reality check. After more than six months, Fundamental Solutions (FSI) and IBM apparently are having great difficulty resolving the contract issues concerning S/390- zSeries FLEX Emulation running on IBM operating systems.

Users currently running an IBM operating system on a FLEX emulator may continue to do so. However, users that want to upgrade the FLEX system with newer IBM software should submit a request to determine if it’s acceptable. It seems that users wanting to upgrade with more powerful FLEX-capable hardware are being denied.